3 ms·

People already remove the universal right to vote for felons so what would the difference be here? One can always talk about universal and then not actually do

• twblalock 8y ago
  If UBI is not universal there is no point to doing it -- it would just be a complicated welfare system, and we already have one of those, and we certainly shouldn't throw it out just to end up creating another one.
  • jostylr 8y ago
    There is a world of difference between taking away benefits from someone convicted of a crime and saying that "such and such people qualify for assistance if they fill out forms x,y,z and do a,b,c." It would be analogous to saying that since we send some people to prison, we should all be in prison. It makes no sense to compare these two things. A person who commits a crime loses some rights. That may include a UBI, it may include voting rights, it may include loss of limbs. Felons are fundamentally treated differently than non-felons. How they are treated does reflect greatly the moral fiber of the population. I personally would not want to take either a UBI or voting away from felons, but that is a completely separate debate and should not be a factor in the UBI being applied to the other 99% of the population. The UBI debate is about what distribution of resources leads to the best society. It is about who has power, who does not. It is about who gets to make the decisions of what is made and to whom that stuff is given. It is about whether people can live secure or in constant fear. It is not a debate about the criminal justice system though that debate needs to be had as well. They are not totally independent, of course. There would be a great deal less crime if the stress of surviving was removed from much of the population.